Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive38

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. To enter additional comments edit the current main page and link to this page for context if needed.

Contents

User:Hopiakuta

Resolved. User has been blocked. DanielEng (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The above user made edits to John Coward and Talk:British Airways Flight 38 that were factually incorrect. I posted to the talk page here stating what I thought to be their point of view and stating what I knew to be fact in the case.

The user subsequently replied here but as this response was removed from the talk page by another user I didn't get to see it. However what I did see in the edit history was the user removing my response to their initial query with the edit summary "removing libel" here.

I then posted a question to the user's talk page here asking for clarification on what I said that was false or defamatory.

The response here is quite lengthy and I find it offensive. First my user name is pulled to pieces as "advertizing of someone who would write an accusation, then delete the response." I am then accused of forcing a response only on their talk page, conspiring against them, being libelous and slanderous against them, of accusing them of being brain damaged and "excessively European", of ignoring an earlier request, of commiting fraud, of being a hypocrite and a demand is made that I restore their comments immediately.

At this point I posted here my displeaure at these accusations and stating that I did not remove their comments as they appear to be suggesting.

Their response to this here was to again accuse me of libel, of making false accusations and of being a dictator. I have not responded. -- Roleplayer (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's more complicated, I'm afraid: see this, including the links in the "Past discussions" box on top. Tvoz |talk 03:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
OK what do I do to make sure the right people are made aware of this? PS I did leave a message on their talk page as requested in the header of this page so I've probably started another discussion accidentally. -- Roleplayer (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
To tell you the truth, I don't know what should be done about the problems people encounter with this editor. It's a long-standing situation, and I think perhaps people higher up in the Wikipedia hierarchy - maybe including legal - should take a look at it. I don't know the circumstances of your specific complaint, but accusations of libel certainly could be construed as a legal threat which is not tolerated. I guess you could try copying this to WP:AN/I, and ask for some intervention. I was just pointing out that I think this is beyond being a "wikiquette" matter, and is rather a matter for senior administration to consider. Tvoz |talk 04:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this. This is an unusual case and some guidance from an administrator or the ArbComm would be helpful at this point. I'd also suggest taking this to AN/I and asking for help. Good luck--DanielEng (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
There is already a page on AN/I dedicated to Don, it is here: Wikipedia:administrators' noticeboard/Wiki editor DonFphrnqTaub Persina . I do agree that a higher-up over at ArbComm needs to be brought into the loop. I like to fancy myself a patient person, but after dealing with this case for very near four months with absolutely no change from the user in question, I'm beginning to tire. I and others have shown him many places he can go to get help, given him much advice about how he work with his age-old computer, etc etc, with no sign from him that he's listening at all. All the best- l'aqùatique talk 18:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Is anything actually happening with that AN/I page? It seems to be very detailed documentation of Don's edits, but it doesn't seem as though there's any action being taken. Approaching someone on the ArbComm seems as though it might be the way to go. Has anyone considered an RfC on this? I don't know if it would be appropriate, but I can't think of any other remedies. I wish I could. Best, DanielEng (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • After reading the diffs, and to avoid further imminent damage, I am blocking [User:Hopiakuta]]. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


User 68.236.36.160

Resolved. Advised editor to disengage from this and ignore the IP user. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I would appreciate some advice regarding User:68.236.36.160. This user has insulted me diff 1, diff 2, and asked for apologies for my good faith edits diff 3, diff 4 and I am tired of responding, so I deleted their comments from my talk page. I was under the impression that this was fine, as they're still in the history and I'd just prefer not to look at (or respond to) any more offensive comments from this user.

This seems quite low key compared to some of the other items on this page, so hopefully it will be relatively simple to address. Can you please confirm that it's fine for me to delete these comments, and that I haven't been uncivil when dealing with this user? I think I have been a bit snippy in the most recent remarks, but it's just tiring to log on to read another insult. Thanks for your time. Somno (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I'd suggest trying to disengage from the IP User. Stop going back and forth between talk pages, stop commenting, stop reverting, stop deleting. The substance of the underlying edit disagreement is pretty minor and probably not worth a fight. It is, IMO, perfectly OK to delete the material from your usertalk page in any case - it will remain in history - just as long as you don't refactor by changing or deleting portions and leaving the remainder visible in order to change the meaning. However, the user may simply post the material again, so you may wish to just leave it there until the user stops watching your page actively and then archive it together with old discussions. The comments are definitely uncivil IMO, but anyone looking at them would recognize that and not likely hold it against you. If the other user is willing to talk, another form of dispute resolution may be in order, such as WP:TINMC - although I participate there at times, I would not involve myself since I've given an opinion here. However, mediation will not work if the other user isn't willing to discuss the matter and both parties willing to assume good faith. Another option might be to place a Request for Comment on either usertalk page per WP:CIV.
  • On a side note, the other user seems to have a habit of not signing posts. You might want to take a look at WP:SIG for some templates for unsigned comments, I prefer {{unsigned}} which is used like: {{subst:unsigned|68.236.36.160|18:19, 31 January 2008}} to the IP specific ones because it allows others to see the contributions link. It may be difficult to do for the prior comments on your talk page since it has been deleted and moved several times, but for future comments you may wish to use this template so there is a record of who posted it and when.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Doug, it's reassuring to know that I am not at fault. When I first removed their attacks from my talk page, I didn't even consider that the user would have it on their watchlist, since they'd "dismissed" me twice - I figured they'd moved on! Strangely, this has all happened because I took the time to explain to the user why I had reverted one edit that they'd made (which the 2 other editors who'd also reverted the same edit hadn't done) - somehow this has made me the subject of 85% of the user's edits on Wikipedia. Crazy! I wish they had this enthusiasm for improving articles, not just attacking people. I will ignore any further communication from this user. Unfortunately they've now started complaining to another editor about me, after they gave the user a welcome message and a polite note to "comment on the edit, not the editor". I hope they also leave that user alone soon. Then it won't need to go any further.
Thanks for the note about how to sign posts on behalf of a user that hasn't signed; that's going to make messages clearer in the future if I'm communicating with another person who doesn't sign, and I didn't know about that before.
I appreciate you reviewing the case. Mostly, thanks for taking the time to "listen" (technically it's not listening, but you know what I mean!). It's very disheartening to be a polite editor who assumes good faith, yet receive nasty messages every time I login. I have received similar messages before after reverting vandalism, but those users have moved on to other things (or been blocked for vandalism) shortly afterwards. Anyway, thanks again! Somno (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the other editor can teach the IP user something. I'm glad this helped. I'll mark it resolved if that's OK. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any other questions.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

user: Happyme22

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereThe matter involves multiple editors. The IP user has requested mediation and the parties seem amenable, discussion is pending completion of the request and the providing of diffs by both sides. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This user/editor is truly bullying the Nancy Reagan article. If you look at the article's history, several editors have tried to create a more neutral POV to the criticisms of the subject, but Happyme22 will not let go. Even if this writer has made major contributions to this article does not give him/her the right to argue his points to a stubborn degree that his "opponent" becomes exhausted and gives up.

The article remains somewhat skewed and does not give an appropriate degree of validity to the criticisms of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.228.83 (talk) 06:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this earlier comment by this IP might be taken into account when evaluating the above complaint. Tvoz |talk 22:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no interest in politics, but this Wikiquette alert appears to be baseless. The reversion of uncited claims, especially potentially controversial ones is not a reason to file this alert. Further, Happyme22 volunteered to check and confirm the claims. Happyme22 also deleted a picture, but that picture was not cleared for posting, and appears to have been deleted. Further, per Tvoz, there should have been a warning left on that IP addresses Talk Page. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Oops, looks like Tvoz did that already. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Concur this is a baseless alert; Happyme22 is a cooperative, collaborative, civil editor and I've seen no problems on the Reagan articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Will someone please look at the contribs of the IP who filed this report; that's the issue here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Cloverfield (creature) and Verifiability

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereissue best addressed at WP:RSN. DanielEng (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC))

Various users have attempted to add that the "creature"'s name is "Clover". The source of this comes from this website: [1]. It directs you to "click here for the production notes." That takes you to a page that has a list of quotations, but no mention of authorship, copyright, source, nor any verifiable set of information. The section that claims the crew believed the monster was called "Clover" is not quoted nor given a direct citation. Vary claims that the cite meets WP:Verifiability although it lacks an author's name. Furthermore, she claims that "Jeff Giles" is reputable enough to be taken for his word, although he does not back up his data, and that I believe he is a blogger, since he is posting in a user area for regular user critiques of movies, and that his homepage, according to [[2]] is the continuation of his blog, "http://www.jefitoblog.com". I objected to Vary posting that information, and it has lead to her constant denial about the issue, along with her defense of the source as proper. Her argument seems self-contradictory, and the reason why she continues it is incredibly confusing. But that is not the matter. The matter is the issue involved: is such a link verifiable and how do you address such? Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This issue, as well as the specific website rottentomatoes, would best be addressed at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Having read WP:SPS, which says that a blog is a self-published source and cannot be considered reliable, I would be inclined to agree with you, but I'd advise putting it out there on RSN so you can get an 'official' neutral opinion on whether or not the sources can be used as is. Good luck! Best, DanielEng (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereissues have either been resolved or are already under discussion at two other noticeboards. DanielEng (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Without entering into any discussion with me at all, Zenwhat apparently has decided to characterize me. He continues to make public reference to me with perjorative terminology; ignoring the noticeboard rules, WP:NPA, WP:ATWV, and WP:DONTBITE. In his ANI, I am referred to variously as a "conspiracy theorist pusher," a "vandal," "troll," "editor with bad faith," and "possible sockpuppet." In his FTN, I am implied to be a " crank."

Overall, the attempt feels to be focused on marginalizing me, and driving away any further verifiable (perhaps, controversial) edits.

Thank you for any advisement on this matter. BigK HeX (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this is both a content and a personality dispute, but both are already being addressed: this issue is already under discussion at ANI and FTN. Both noticeboards are patrolled more thoroughly by administrators than WQA. I noticed that the sockpuppet issue has also already been addressed by another admin who determined you're not a sock. Zenwhat's contributions and motives will be scrutinized at ANI and FTN as much as yours will be, and if there are any personal attacks happening, they will be addressed there. It's better to allow the discussions to happen there instead of bringing them to a third forum. Best, DanielEng (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I should mention that I didn't bring this here. Someone else copied this here without my direct acquiescence. As I am unsure of policy, I did not protest it being copied, though. BigK HeX (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
That's fine, but it really doesn't belong here. Putting the exact same issue in different noticeboards is considered to be forum shopping, and while I don't think it violates any particular Wiki policy, it's generally frowned upon. Also, it's never a good idea to let someone copy/paste your words this way on your behalf, without indicating that they've done so. Looking at the page history and diffs it's obvious now that you didn't file this yourself, but anything with your user signature is going to be attributed directly to you--so protect it well in future. I'm going to leave a note for AdHoc about this. Best, DanielEng (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My claim about "monetary crankery" on WP:FTN wasn't specifically with regards to you, but the content of the article. I didn't mention your name and I've used the same term in several postings of several different articles not involving you.

I referred to your behavior on Monetary policy of the USA as "trolling" on WP:ANI. [3] If any of the administrators there thought it was uncivil, they could've made that comment. On the contrary, some of them recommended that I put in a checkuser request, which I intend to do.

Starting a new thread about uncivility on WP:ANI about a thread just a few threads back, then posting about this in WP:WQA seems like a classic case of Wikilawyering. Please stop attempting to own Monetary policy of the USA. If you're truly extremely biased as you've acknowledged, and have in good faith been misled by several fringe sources on monetary policy, as you've acknowledged, it might be a good idea for you to edit something else besides stuff related to monetary theory and Ron Paul. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat, looking at the diffs for this page, BHx is right--someone else apparently copied and pasted this from ANI, using BhX's sig.[4]. I'm leaving a note for the editor who brought this here, because it seems as though it shouldn't have been done. Best, DanielEng (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I didn't notice that. Doesn't seem appropriate for them to do that [5] or for them to remove your comments when you comment on their talkpage to complain. [6] Writing in the edit summary "no opinion," is absurd, because if the person didn't believe the claim had merit, say, if it was blatant gibberish, they wouldn't re-post it.

However, BigK HeX does seem to be aware of this posting, since he made revisions to it immediately after it was posted. [7] ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the editor who originally brought this here has been over on my Talk Page leaving comments, but is deleting them from his/her own page. *shrug* Not a big deal. Unless there are other opinions, I'm content to leave this as a closed case and let it run its course elsewhere. DanielEng (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Cheeser1 (2)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nothing more to see here. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Though he/she is a volunteer here, this person Cheeser1, in responding to a civility complaint against me, accused me of something I did not do and refuses to retract it. He/she is being extremely prejudiced and I need another editor to review the comments on my talk page (talk). I agreed to the civility charge, but there is a larger issue here. I cannot let this accusation stand that I actually threatened someone when I did not. I am disturbed that he/she showed interest at all in my point of view. Neil Raden (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* What is with it with people and filing frivolous complaints against people responding to a WQA? Asking you to keep your behavior in line is not a personal attack. If you are concerned because your behavior on Wikipedia is causing you problems in real life, you have three options: stop using your real name on Wikipedia, stop wishing other people harm and being otherwise uncivil, or stop contributing to Wikipedia (especially since all you do here is comment on an article about your wife's medical protocol). --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Totally outside editor, looking at this for the first time. The original complaint that was made about you ("you" meaning Neil, not Cheeser!) was about a post on someone's Talk Page that included the phrase "But if he can't turn their hearts, he should turn their ankles so we can recognize them by their limp." You then went on to tell the editor to "soak her ankle." It was part of a parable, yes, but that's not exactly a warm and fuzzy sentiment, is it? You also posted it on the Talk Page of an editor with whom you apparently have a longterm adversarial relationship, both on and off Wiki, so it's not at all surprising that it was taken as a threat or a wish for harm. Frankly, if someone who wasn't a friend left a message of that nature on my Talk Page, I'd take it as harassment and a threat, just s Dev did.
Whether or not you see it as a joke, making any sort of threat of bodily harm is unacceptable on Wiki. Cheeser1 did nothing wrong by warning you about it, and your complaint here really is frivolous. DanielEng (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

To be perfectly blunt, I think Cheeser1 did step a bit out of line in responding to Neil. It's not to the point that I think any serious harm was done, but I can see how his directness (paraphrase: "Go elsewhere, because this is totally unacceptable") could inflame more than help. I'll leave a note on his Talk page. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not use quotation marks if you are not quoting me. Not only is that statement, as far as I'm concerned, totally misrepresentative, it is not a quotation at all. I have no further comment on this matter, because I'm done dignifying this stuff with any sort of response. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I want to address just that one specific point (the paraphrase from KieferSkunk). First, the use of quotation marks to distinguish grammatical sense is normal: Alice said something like "good morning" attributes the demarked phrase to Alice, even though it specifically does not atrribute the specific words to Alice. As a mathematician Cheeser1 completely understands this, so the arguement that the (self-described) paraphrase is not a quotation, is specious and eristic. That leaves the representativeness of the paraphrase, which of course is somewhat more subjective. I'd make three points regarding that: first, the phrase "go elsewhere" is not a good representation. It reflects the tone of the actual quote, but is in itself particularly inflammatory, and Cheesher1's original avoided such particulars. Second, IMO the actual quote is uncivil and the paraphrase was an honest (if imperfect) reflection of KieferSkunk's reading of the quote. The "totally misrepresentative" assessment is wrong. Third, Cheeser1, like me, sometimes fails to express himself perfectly succinctly. That makes quoting particular phrasing for uncivility very difficult. I actually try to be more terse when I lose my temper, but one cannot judge oneself. Incidentally, I find the poetical use of the parable to be very mild, rhetorically, compared to much of what I'm used to here. I myself wouldn't expect Cheeser1 to bring a WQA against me if I expressed the desire for all his neuronal soma to simultaneously increment their homotopy class. Pete St.John (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
My mistake! I just seriously burned myself, as the key word "paraphrase" was a late addition to KieferSkunk's remark, after Cheeser1's reply. So on the strictly technical point about use of quotation marks, I let myself be misled. For that I apologize to Cheeser1. Regarding the late ammendation, however, much better would have been to replace blah "foo bar" with blah "foo bar" [--which I had meant as a paraphrase ~~~~] or some such editorial device to make the ammendation explicit. Anyway, ouch. Thanks to Hans for pointing this out to me. He really is patient. Pete St.John (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, sorry for the confusion. I had indeed meant that to read as "this was meant as a paraphrase, not a direct quote". I will keep that in mind for future reference. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This is the edit that I was referring to. While my quote was not verbatim, it is close to what you said. That particular diff was what I took issue to.
I would like to state, for the record, that I do not condone Nraden's actions and am not validating them. I am specifically referring to your response. I am not asking you to leave or to stop helping out. I am only asking you to be mindful of the policies yourself - it's all too easy to break them while telling other people about them. (See WP:AAGF.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, I should clarify that Cheeser's responding to Neil, and the overall substance of what he said, was not out of line. It was the way in which he responded and argued with Neil that I felt was counterproductive. I regret that my earlier comment made it seem otherwise. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I would like to point out to Nraden and Debv that, short of murder, the most promising strategy for "winning" this conflict is to maintain an impeccable conduct in the face of the other party continuing on the current level of immaturity. ("Holiday greetings", offsite publishing of Wikipedia communications, absurd accusations against mediators...). My impression is that the long-term goal of both parties is that both be banned. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Cheeser's remark above about how I should "escalate" the dispute was rude as well. Escalate may literally mean "to go" but it connotes bad faith. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Cheeser1 has already explained the technical meaning of "escalate" to you. I myself regularly use this term in real life. Telling cold callers to escalate the call, i.e., to put me through to their boss, is a sure way to make them hang up immediately. This has nothing to do with bad faith. Please read again what he wrote, and make sure to assume good faith. You will realise that far from being sarcastic he gave you reasonable advice. When you replied irritatedly, he immediately understood the misunderstanding and calmly explained it to you. Since you were quiet after that I thought you had understood his explanation. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
See Google results for "escalate the call". I have chosen the telephone version of this use because it is particularly easy to search for. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Note I mentioned the connotation and specifically said that the "technical" definition is irrelevant. A person is not going to say, "escalate the dispute," unless they're talking about bad-faith edits, because of what the word escalate connotes. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You are reading Cheeser1's mind just like I am reading his mind. But you are assuming bad faith (innocently, of course) and I am assuming good faith. The technical use of the word uses the metaphor of a process as stairs, and escalating (from French "escalier") means ascending one step. In this technical sense there are no emotional connotations whatsoever. And it is obvious from context, once you follow my advice and reread his statements while assuming good faith, that by "dispute" he meant "a matter of opinion over which parties actively disagree, argue, or debate", which can be escalated by following a process step by step until it is resolved. In contrast to a conflict, which can be escalated by making it worse. Cheeser1 is here to defuse conflicts, not to escalate them. It makes no sense to suspect him of intentionally using inflammatory language. He unintentionally used one ambiguous formulation in a blatantly positive context. Picking the negative meaning is exactly the counterproductive behaviour that the AGF principle wants us to avoid, because it creates drama out of nothing. --Hans Adler (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not mind-reading. I'm reading connotations, which are as much a part of language as definitions. To use your own example, technically, there are a number of synonyms for dispute. Despite this, would you actually claim that the following sentences are identical, in meaning?

  • "User X and user Y were having a disagreement."
  • "User X and user Y were having an argument."
  • "Use X and Y were bickering."
  • "User X and user Y were bitching at eachother."

The last one is definitely bad etiquette and the third one comes close.

And again, to use the word escalate:

  • "I escalated the mountain."
  • "I escalated the stairs."
  • "Steam escalated from the teapot."
  • "Yes, I've been on hold for 15 minutes, could you escalate me to your boss?"

It sounds patently absurd. I understood his point, but it was rude to suggest that I'm acting in bad faith and after seeing somebody else complain, I thought I'd comment as well. Lastly, I find it appauling that you'd suggest that users should be banned for etiquette violations -- in a case where they aren't even the ones being accused. Were their actions so objectionable to begin with, surely, you should've put forth such a case before this point, particularly if you're concerned with avoiding unnecessary drama and unfounded accusations. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I will just point out: [8] [9] (note the definition that refers to escalating a complaint in a support-type setting, which is what we are in). I can't believe this is still going on. This is the most blatant non-WP:AGF I've ever seen in my time as a Wikipedian. And also, for the record, two of four of Zenwhat's examples of the use of "escalated" aren't even correct. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I left an extensive comment on Zenwhat's talk page, as I don't think it makes sense to continue this here. I have learned from this that the WP:AGF article may need more explanation, perhaps in the form of an essay that explains why it is needed on the internet (no faces to look at) and that it is something one actually has to learn. --Hans Adler (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Do WP:AAGF and WP:POT help at all? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 08:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure who this is directed to. In this context you could theoretically mean any out of three people, and so there are no less than 7 possibilities. Could you please clarify? --Hans Adler (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
You. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify my request. I half expect the 8th answer, which would be "No one in particular; I just thought these essays were a bit like what you proposed." But this involves a bit of mind-reading, which seems to be dangerous in a situation such as this where people are living in one of two severely different realities. In any case thanks for the reminder. I do think that these essays are relevant. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)?
My question about whether the essays helped or not was directed mainly to you (Hans Adler), but those essays are applicable to all parties. I had intended to point you to some essays that I felt served the same purpose as what you were proposing - they're likely not the answer to whether WP:AGF itself needs to be clarified, but I find they help out a lot when discussing situations like this. — KieferSkunk (talk) &mydash; 00:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I agree absolutely. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
You guys are a nice self-selected sample. I don't know why I would ever expect you to call out a peer in a case of contributory incivility. as for the above, can you guys spell "wank"? What does any of this have to do with my complaint? If you can't figure out what I meant from the context, you need to get out a little more. This guy is a powder keg. I may be blunt, but I don't hang out on WQA posing as a mediator until someone disagrees with me (although I guess he did give you some more fodder for semantic disambiguation with his comment to me "Get a life."). Anyway, I don't care, just keep him away from the page I'm working on because he has no reason to he there except to harrass me, which he is doing with the COI banner (note, DebV described herself as COI in her complaint against me, which Cheeser1 has apparently overlooked). And here is my last question to you prodigious parsers - where was the assumption of good faith in interpreting my holiday greetings? If you're going to talk the talk, well, you know the rest. Neil Raden (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, not helping your case, buddy. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Well, if there was any doubt as to your intentions before, your incivility here just now has really justified everyone's comments. I don't know you, and I did look at your complaint, as well as the allegations against you, with an open mind. I also made a point of not reading your article of interest so I would not be biased one way or the other. What I saw from your own words and comments to DebV was a conflict between two editors that have an acrimonious relationship outside of Wiki, and seem determined to drag it here as well. You have made over 15 edits, some significant, [10] to the Wiley Protocol article. Whether you are currently editing it or not, you've contributed and you're very closely affiliated with the subject, so the COI tag on the Talk Page is appropriate. The COI tag on the article itself does not specify which editor has the conflict of interest, so it could apply to either you or DebV. The issue is already over at WP:COINand the consensus there does not indicate that the tags are 'harassment' or inappropriate.

You are not allowed to assume ownership of articles on Wiki, so no, nobody here can keep an editor away from an article for you. It's an open project and everyone has a right to edit every page. If you don't like how they're editing, talk it out on the Talk Page or seek a third opinion. If there's vandalism, report it. Otherwise, you will just have to learn to get along with others. If someone sees what they believe is a personal attack or threat, or believes that you are not acting in a way that benefits the project, s/he has every right to warn you about it. If it bothers you, ignore it, or change your behavior. DanielEng (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hans Adler: In our talkpage discussion, you were rude to me as well, but I didn't bring it here because I mostly think it's silly to run to WP:WQA every time somebody makes an assertion of "incivility." In our discussion, I disagreed with you about Cheeser1 and you characterized my disagreement as "your version of reality." Hence, the claims about how you left a lengthy comment on my talkpage and want to clarify WP:AGF may be true, but they are misleading. You don't call a person's disagreement their "version of reality," while at the same time portraying yourself as a patron saint for civility. Administrators are frequently "snooty," when it comes to discussing policy violations and examples of this can be found all over various noticeboards. I don't particularly think it's a problem (sometimes it's funny to watch them do it), provided that it's enforced equally, which it isn't -- not because any "cabal," but because of human nature which tends to cause us to gather into silly, irrational cliques. Wikipedia policy should attempt to address this some way and, in this one case, I thought that commenting here might be helpful to encourage Chesser1 to be a bit less caustic and terse as many people often are.
Anyway, because of the way you spoke to me on my talkpage, I removed your comments and ignored you. On this basis, I don't intend to continue this debate here or elsewhere. I simply wanted to leave my statements here to clarify the historical record when this page gets archived. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I mean, just look at the Dreadstar discussion below. A SysOp is accused of censorship assuming ownership and the conversation gets archive tags clamped down around it. Horrible. Just horrible. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

For someone who filed a complaint against me for (appropriately) using the word "escalate" you sure are prone to ranting and tossing around words like "horrible" and "clamp" and "silly" and so forth. Now that is silly. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser1, you continue to act in the way described. "You sure are prone to ranting." Yes, Cheeser1, I am a raving madman.

I will not engage in a lengthy debate here on the matter, because that would be disruptive and counterintuitive. You may have the last word on the issue if you would like it. Your actions speak for themselves. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A famous Zen master was well known for having very bad breath, but out of respect for his old age nobody wanted to tell him to wash his mouth. One day, a little child said: "Why do you stink so much out of your mouth?" The Zen master got very angry and would have flogged the child if he had not been too doddery. On the same day, half of his students were enlightened. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
You can't be serious. You're concerned about being disruptive? When did that start? You tacked on an unrelated nit-pick to a frivolous complaint. And what was your problem? My correct use of the word escalate, which is by the way a word you do not even know how to use correctly (as I pointed out when you tried, and failed, to use the word in a few sentences). Thanks for continuing to drag this out even further, and then trying to play it like you've got the moral high ground by saying "you go ahead and get in the last word, now that I've tacked several ludicrous rants onto this WQA." I guess that's what I get for trying to help you with your concerns. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Then please stop replying with pointless character attacks in an attempt to gain the "high ground" in the conversation. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Paul Harald Kaspar and Talk:Wachovia Spectrum

Paul Harald Kaspar has repeatedly deleted the same chunk of text on Wachovia Spectrum, and another user has filed a request at Requests for Mediation on it. This may be overlapping, but I'm more concerned about the user conduct issues. If you read Talk:Wachovia Spectrum#Wrestling content, he repeatedly calls the other editors "wrestling fan kids" and finally accuses the two editors disagreeing with him of being sockpuppets.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that he has refused mediation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Accusations of sockpuppetry may not be warranted here, but I do not see some glaring breach of wikiquette by this user. On the other hand, can the following threat be put into better context:
I've never edited on wrestling before on Wikipedia, or any other sport, but hey, if that's what it's going to take, I think the two of us can strong-arm you over this issue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This was the most glaring breach of etiquette that I saw; amounting to a threat that if one or more editors don't like the edit of one, they will simply overpower them. This is not how consensus is reached here. In terms of the editing content, that needs to be more cooly handled on the Talk Page. As for wikiquette, I think there are two editors that need to take a deep breath. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it is only fair to point out that User:Prosfilaes, who initiated this inquiry into my supposed lack of "Wikiquette", has refused to explain this much more profound and threatening behaviour. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The "wrestling kids" attempted to use a newly-crowned admin to block my account for 31 hours for "vandalism" (which was quickly reversed because of it not being vandalism, and not warning being given), and are now stating that one must cite policy to remove non-notable content from articles, while leaving bogus "blanking" warnings on my talk page. It seems that as soon as one of their arguments is refuted, they change it to something else, and adjust their strategy accordingly. It appears I have run afoul of one of the infamous "Wikicliques". Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It was following Paul's statement that "Nothing any of the fan kids has said in any way justifies wrestling content being strong-armed into Wikipedia articles by zealous followers of said pseudo-sport." It may not have been the most polite, but I fail to see how to reach consensus with someone who will just dismiss it as the talk of "fan kids" and "zealous followers of said pseudo-sport".
LonelyBeacon, I also strongly disagree your statement that there's not much wrong with his use of the term "wrestling fan kids"; "kid" here is clearly a personal attack, accusing the editors of being immature. In general, there's no need to characterize other editors at all, and whether or not I enjoy wresting is irrelevant to the content. Accusing me of being a fan of a man who murdered his wife and children is completely irrelevant and so far beyond the pale it's not even funny.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Per talk page, this user has failed to provide any rationale for deleting the content. Wrestling is just as notable as other sports/entertainment listings on that page. The user also made similar deletions from other pages [11] [12], and refused to engage in mediation on the matter. Regarding the "clique" accusations, I've never interacted with the involved parties previously, nor have I been involved with editing the pages. It first came to my attention via the AI page. The blanking warnings are not bogus; you will be blocked if you continue to remove content without citing any policy or consensus for doing so. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Threatening a block for making legitimate edits is just more attempted "strong-arming". Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Unreferenced edits do not require a reason to be deleted. While in general it is a good idea to discuss deletions on a Talk Page (even after deleting them, at least to give a courtesy reason, I do not belive that it is necessary. I think taht is a part of aggressive editing. I would suggest reading WP:V.
The blanking warnings are not really called for here. If they cotinue, I think only then would I interpret them as harassment. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I have removed another "blanking" warning from User:Ohnoitsjamie. At this point, whether he/she is an admin or not, I consider these warnings to be harassment from a "Wikiclique". Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Gustafson

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

In this edit, Mr. Gustafson refused to respond to my latest set of questions and changed my post, in doing so continuing to avoid being listed as an Administrator anywhere but in the user database and continuing to forge the signature of his alter ego "Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*>". He also made a disingenuous Edit Summary in this edit. All of these actions are uncivil and unbecoming of an Administrator.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. There is no incivility, I am under no obligations to archive my talk page, I am under no obligations to acquiesce to the demands of random users who want me to put this or that on my user page, and I am under no obligation to be listed anywhere. This has been borne out multiple times, and my actions are not just accepted practice, but entirely within accepted policy - perhaps someone else can point that out to the reporting user, though based on and the content of this thread, I have tried, and he either choses to ignore the facts or doesn't wholly understand them. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Jeff G. Everything you point to on Mr. Gustafsons talk page has no basis in policy. He doesn't have to have a userpage, and many admins appear in no admin categories - your inclusion is entirely optional. I would also like to bring to your attention, that many users (including the ArbCom) have ratified this position (including his userpage, and not archiving his talk page) and the way he is carrying out this is entirely acceptable. I think this is more of a case of you being mistaken about some policies and guidelines rather than the fault of Mr. Gustafson. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflicted)I see no problem in Gustafson's actions. Maybe a bit of AGF? He's already listed as administrator on Special:Listusers/sysop (if I recall the link correctly), and that's enough. If you want to check if somebody's an admin, that's where you should look. As for the talk page blanking, it's entirely ok. Even vandals can remove warnings, according to our policy. If he would delete it, that would be another thing, but the page history it's there for some reasons, don't you think? Happy editing, Snowolf How can I help? 19:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Jeff G., could you please explain where the incivilities in this case are, if any? If there aren't any, I am sure you will consider rewithdrawing your complaing in order to avoid putting yourself into a very bad light. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • He refused to respond to my latest set of questions. I see this as a failure to "give explanations and be communicative as necessary"[13].   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Do we have any rules that oblige admins to suffer filibustering by clueless users? --Hans Adler (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
What I have done is not filibustering, I am not clueless, and I object to any implications to the contrary.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • He changed my post. This was not a nice thing to do.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you referring to the colon he put into your category link to avoid improper inclusion of his talk page in the category, or to something serious? --Hans Adler (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. How is inclusion of that talk page in that category improper? Also, what he did was in violation of "do not edit others' comments"[14].   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
He clearly assumed good faith, namely that you did not try to force his inclusion into that category, which was none of your business. Please give a clear answer: Did you try to force this, yes or no? --Hans Adler (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I did not try to force this. But I do believe that {{user admin}}, its associated Category:Wikipedia administrators, and Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/G-O exist for good reasons, and that some users use Category:Wikipedia administrators and Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/G-O to look for Administrators without the cumbersome http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListusers&username=&group=sysop&limit=50.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
If you did not try to force the inclusion of his talk page in the category, then I can see no possible reason for you to complain. If you do not understand the spirit of our policies you should read them completely, e.g. WP:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments: "Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments…". And then there is a long list. This list does not say: "If someone makes an obvious mistake that results in a talk page being included in a category, you are allowed to add the missing colon." That's because it rarely happens and because it's so obvious. Just look at the other examples. Besides, what should he have done instead? Leave the mistake as it is, attack you for it, and start the kind of drama that you have chosen to start? --Hans Adler (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It was not a mistake, neither did I try to force it by reverting.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • He continues to avoid being listed as an Administrator anywhere but in the user database. The vast majority of Administrators do not do this. In one removal, he wrote in its Edit Summary "I wish not to be pestered by anyone looking for help I will not give."[15]   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
And his first name is "Jeffrey", in contrast to most other admins, whose first name is not "Jeffrey". Where is your point, please? --Hans Adler (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
As I wrote above, I do believe that {{user admin}}, its associated Category:Wikipedia administrators, and Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/G-O exist for good reasons, and that some users use Category:Wikipedia administrators and Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/G-O to look for Administrators without the cumbersome http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListusers&username=&group=sysop&limit=50.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
That's still no valid reason for concern. You believe something. Mr. Gustafson doesn't believe it; or perhaps he does but he thinks, or even knows, that he is exempt from it for whatever reason. You are not required to accept that. But if you want to be a team player on Wikipedia you need to learn tolerating such differences of opinion, if you can't prove that the other position is against policy or consensus. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Does hiding one's status qualify one for being a team player on Wikipedia?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • He is continuing to forge the signature of his alter ego "Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*>". Forgery is illegal in many jurisdictions.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It is well known that both accounts belong to the same user. In almost all jurisdictions it is not illegal for a famous person to write autographs with the alias under which they are publicly known, even if that's not what their passport says. Again, what is your problem with this? How does it hurt you? --Hans Adler (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I expect everyone here, especially Administrators, to exhibit transparency (humanities). Also, "In no circumstance should a signature be used to impersonate another user: in particular, a signature should not be identical to the actual username of another existing user, and even more importantly should not link to someone else's userpage."[16]   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
???? Are you accusing the person Jeffrey O. Gustafson, when he is logged in under the user name "Mr. Gustafson", of impersonating the user name "Jeffrey O. Gustafson"? The word "user" in this rule is ambiguous, and there is no need to make it clearer because 1) only few people are allowed to have two user names, and 2) these users can be expected to know whether the rule means "natural person" or "user name" when it refers to "user". --Hans Adler (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am accusing Mr. Gustafson of impersonating the user name "Jeffrey O. Gustafson" when signing posts and logged in as "Mr. Gustafson". Wikipedia:SIG AKA Wikipedia:Signatures is a guideline. I have yet to see his justification for doing so. I have also yet to see his justification for using account "Mr. Gustafson" for non-tedious edits.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • He made a disingenuous Edit Summary in this edit. "archive" does not mean "delete".   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Since he seems to be obsessed with privacy (probably for a valid reason, since he convinced ArbCom), he may well have a private archiving system in place on his own computer. Editing comments on your own user page are mainly for yourself, since no collaboration is expected there. And it's not every day that someone comes along and starts nitpicking about trifles, after all. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC) [edited Hans Adler (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)]
  • You could just stop badgering him and accept his responses at face value. Civility is mandated to facilitate productive collaboration, it doesn't require editors to entertain the petty pedantries of wikiquette for the sake of someone's personal appeasement. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Once he asked to be left alone, I merely created this section, notified him about it, and responded in it. How does that qualify for badgering?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Jeff, I'll be the first to admit that I had some concerns about Jeffrey O. Gustafson's behavior a while back, and I think some of his current behavior (e.g., lack of user page, handling of his talk page) is both quirky and suboptimal. However, those seem like tolerable quirks, whereas your comments here come across as mean-spirited badgering. Any actual point you might have (a notion I am still open to) is deeply undermined by some of your comments above. Perhaps you could take a long walk and see if your views have settled on your return? William Pietri (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
What makes those quirks so tolerable for you? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe that at this point, Jeff G. is doing nothing more than pestering for any quick answer or resolve that falls within his favour. I can't find any real validity to his claims, and even if there were, his continued triumphing over a mountain when it is nothing more than a molehill reflects poorly upon his character. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
All of my claims are factual and referenced. WP:CIVIL is still "an official policy on the English Wikipedia."   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
There's something that bothers me. Why doesn't he ever use his administrative account anymore? He will need that account for administrative purposes. 124.181.26.71 (talk) 07:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I find this comment puzzling. The last actions of Jeffrey O. Gustafson in his role as an administrator seem to have been in December. Administrators are under no obligation to be continually doing work that needs the admin bit, just like all editors are under no obligation to log in and edit regularly. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeff G. has made it sufficiently clear by now that this thread is essentially about the fact that Jeffrey O. Gustafson / Mr. Gustafson (who are transparently the same person in real life) do not follow his personal interpretation of our policies and guidelines, and his personal ideas about conduct of administrators. He has not made a single convincing argument based on community consensus or a breach of his interests by that administrator.

Since any civility problems here are at best marginal and bilateral, and since there is an obvious solution (no further communication between the two), there is no real Wikiquette issue here. It is very unlikely that in the informal atmosphere that we have here Jeff G. can be convinced that some of his ideas about Wikipedia are minority views. If he insists on pursuing this further, the next step in the conflict resolution process seems to be WP:RFC. But I highly recommend reading WP:ADMIN before doing so, especially the first two paragraphs. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Abu Musa and Greater and Lesser Tunbs

User Axamir has repeatedly attempted to delete the Arabic names of these Iran-administered, UAE-claimed islands and to delete mention of the (well-cited) UAE claim. (Examples: [17] [18] [19], among many others.) For several weeks, he declined to justify these repeated deletions either through edit summaries or on the Talk pages. I have reverted these unexplained deletions, each time entreating Axamir to discuss them. He has responded with insults [20], threats [21], false statements [22], deletions of Talk page discussions[23] [24] [25], apparent sockpuppetry [26] [27] [28] and more reversions [29] [30]. Any assistance would be appreciated. PRRfan (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I invited User:Axamir to join this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you EdJohnston for your invitation to take part in this conversation.

The references the user PPRFAN refers his arguments to, are not valid references. I am afraid I can not accept propaganda. As for mentioning the name of an Iranian island in Arabic or any other languages other than the language of the native people of the island, I do not think it is necessary due to the fact that there are pages put up with those languages and people of those languages can read through those pages.

Here is what I propose, if the user, PPRFAN, is insisting on writing the name of the island in different languages: We can put up a headline at the end of the page and write the name of the island in Arabic and other languages. --Axamir (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Axamir, I'm afraid you'll have to do better than to dismiss references as "propaganda." You will have to demonstrate that those references are false and to provide references of your own. Remember, the point of the article is not to render a judgement about whether Iran or UAE has the valid claim on the islands; it is to properly note that such a dispute exists. Citations for the existence of such a dispute include these: [1][2][3][4] Can you provide more persuasive references that no such claim exists? PRRfan (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

PPRFAN: I can not go over this with you all the time. I keep explaining to you but you again take us to square one!!! Please do not mix things up. All I am trying to tell you is that these claims have not been accepted by United Nations and Iran. They were mentioned by UAE but due to lack of back up they were all rejected and they are counted as false claims by United Nations and also Iran.

Kindly provide references backing up your assertions. PRRfan (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to mention these in the page, they need to be placed with an headline, I emphasize with an headline, in the bottom of the page NOT in the introduction.

I am glad that you are justified about the redundancy of using foreign languages other than native language of the island residents in the English page.

I'm afraid I don't understand this sentence. PRRfan (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to read valid sources like Britannica encyclopedia, and .... I will do a major editing of the page as I get some time. --Axamir (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

And I encourage you to add references to such sources as you find. PRRfan (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

PPRFAN: Please read this again. I hope this time you understand!! As for mentioning the name of an Iranian island in Arabic or any other languages other than the language of the native people of the island, I do not think it is necessary due to the fact that there are pages tabbed up with those languages and people of those languages can read through those pages. --Axamir (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, Axamir, the point is that there is an unresolved claim by UAE on the island, which the article makes clear and which is documented by the existing references. Kindly provide references before making your proposed changes. PRRfan (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by "tabbed up"? Also, I agree with PRRfan that any additions, especially potentially controversial ones, should be referenced.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Jeff on the issue of references. We need to provide a VALID reference to the any modification we make. As for your question, on the left side there is a list of languages you may choose to view your page with; such as, French, German, ... I do not see any necessity for adding foreign languages to an English page. PPRFAN: Stop doing your childish Undo-game that you have started!! Believe me you not getting any where. You just deleted a well referenced fact about the island. Shame on you. --Axamir (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Axamir, I need not remind you that the reasons we are discussing the matter on this page are your unexplained, unreferenced changes.[31][32][33] I am glad you have agreed to abide by the Wikipedia principle of citing references when you make changes. I am going to revert your latest unsummarized deletions and allow you to proceed by furnishing a reference when you make further edits. PRRfan (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Those are the ones related to use of foreign language in the English page. Any foreign language need to be written in a page assigned to them (100 times!). Please understand. You talk about references and all that but I see numerous times that you have deleted a well referenced statement like this:
Abu Musa is one of the Iran's most Southerly island in the Persian Gulf and is part of a six-island archipelago near the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz[5].
There is a double standard between your words and actions. I can not accept this. I would like to let you know that I will edit anything unreferenced, fraud, biased from you on these pages. I am done with you since you evade my questions and try to shoot the ball in my ground in a hope that I let you off the hook. No more correspondence will be entertained her. --Axamir (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Axamir. I'm afraid you are misrepresenting my edits. Let us look at the sequence of edits to the first paragraph of Abu Musa. On 4 February[34] (and again on 5 February [35]), you deleted without explanation several references backing up the statement that Iran controls the island but UAE claims it. You also introduced several grammatical errors ("Abu Musa is one of the Iran's...", "most Southerly," etc.). Finally, you wrote that the island is Iran's, contradicting the more accurate "administered but claimed" sentence that remained. I duly undid your unexplained, undiscussed deletions of these references, returned the sentences to grammatical correctness, and removed the "Iran's most Southerly" phrase pending a citation. As always, kindly provide a citation for your edits. Thanks. PRRfan (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Mukkulathor

Resolved. Old discussions archived. Pairadox (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Kindly have a look at the talk page for Mukkulathor ethnic group. It is full of personal attacks and abusive language. I dont know how to deal with it and whether blanking a page is permissible as per Wikipedia rules. So I request administrators to take action in this regard and against the users involved. -Ravichandar 08:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I moved this section to the bottom of the page, where most people are looking for new sections. And I agree that the talk page looks pretty bad, although I can't really examine it closer right now. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I think part of the talk page should probably be deleted to make it clear we don't tolerate that kind of language. Perhaps someone with more experence will look into it. Otherwise I will ask an admin directly. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I've simply archived the older discussions at Talk:Mukkulathor/Archive 1. Pairadox (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Ravichandar, if this kind of behaviour starts again, please don't hesitate to come here again or to WP:ANI. Some of those editors should have been blocked immediately. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
It was all old stuff, from October and before. If it hasn't continued from then it's not likely to, but I've got it on my watchlist anyway. Pairadox (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm also putting this page on my watchlist, just in case. Best, DanielEng (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User:WebHamster

WebHamster (talk · contribs)

  • [36] -- personal attack/incivility
  • [37] -- user created new MfD nomination in blatant violation of WP:POINT
  • [38] -- personal attack/incivility/just plain inappropriate remark at MfD
  • [39] -- personal attack on the user's opponents at the MfD.
  • [40] -- blatant bad-faith assumption and personal attack
  • [43] -- another response to AGF/civility warning, after I took the matter to the user's talk page.
  • [44] -- latest inappropriate comment, at RfC

As you can see, I attempted to warn User:WebHamster about violating AGF/CIVIL/NPA, but he only became more belligerent when I did. I think this warrants a polite yet stern warning to the user, imparting to him that his comments are indeed in violation of policy and inappropriate, and that he should try harder to keep a cool head. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:44, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I've looked a bit; seems two things: first, yes, WebHamster seems underdeveloped in terms of wiki-civility; but second, the battleground seems to be inherently contentious, so people with little or no experience with wiki will feel motivated to fight for their PoV. Tough job to mediate. Pete St.John (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Definitely agree that it's a battleground type environment. Nevertheless this particular user's comments seem more uncivil than others. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:07, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)
I civily and tactly asked Webhamster to refrain from incivil comments directed at other users. This was his response. It speaks for itself: [45]. If he is reticent to communicate civily with other users, then action may need to be taken. What is the opinion of the WQA regulars on this? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I dropped a note at his talk page. I don't think I qualify as a regular here; if he's persistent then you'd probably have to go for an ANI. But he seems at least rational and voluble, if not obsequious, so maybe patience will pay off. Pete St.John (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd probably say ANI too, recent edits made to this MFD concern me. Rudget. 22:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Not to split hairs or anything, but most of the diffs that you've labeled "personal attacks" are more just general incivility and not directly targeted at the person(s) to whom he is replying. There are one or two that, regrettably, are evidently personal attacks, but there are others that seem to be a misinterpretation of harsh, misdirected rhetoric or even of an honest question. Even the incivility is mild for the most part, given the contentiousness of the issue (not that that's any excuse). It doesn't seem that this user has a long history of abusive behavior (though it appears he's had to be straightened out on a few policies here and there, but who hasn't?), so it's likely that he just got sucked into an argument that pushed some wrong buttons. Needless to say, I've seen much worse. The user has been warned and it would probably be best for all involved to just let this one rest if at all possible. There's no need to further heat up the already contentious issue that's being discussed at the relevant RfC. However, I have noticed that WebHamster hasn't been notified of this discussion, so I think it's only fair that he be made aware of it. I will recommend to him that he take some time to cool off. (Freaking edit conflicts...) However, if this pattern of behavior continues beyond this particular issue, I endorse further action. LaMenta3 (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Just an extra note, I kept getting edit conflicts as I was trying to post this, so as the discussion progressed, some of what I said became slightly irrelevant. Nonetheless, I've had more good experiences than bad with WebHamster, so I'm inclined to think that he's probably getting a little too impassioned over this particular issue. LaMenta3 (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I tried a plea at ANI for a warning about the general situation (WP:AN/I#Repeated incivility by User:WebHamster), but was met with a response that implied that I had been acting the same way -- which I don't see, although I admit I can't be considered an objective party here (although I still appreciate Jay's initial warning). Equazcion •✗/C • 22:12, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Equazcion, you're rushing. You only just posted this Wikiquette item today, right? and we only several minutes ago put notification on his talk page? Wiki does not move that fast. He may not log on until tomorrow...or next week. Please continue your patience. Pete St.John (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
No no, I posted at ANI first, and then was directed here. :) Equazcion •✗/C • 22:18, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)
OK that makes sense, my mistake, but your "I tried a plea at ANI..." above could have been phrased better ("I had tried a plea...") and you should have referenced that item at the top in introducing this one, IMO. I'm sympathetic with the problem of picking between Wikiquette, which seems generally too little, and ANI, which seems often too much. But anyway fine, we'll wait for his response and maybe everything will chill nicely. But wow, that's a contentious userbox you guys have going there. Pete St.John (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I had pretty much just copied and pasted the same dealy here, removing the stuff about asking for an admin to do the warning. You're right though, I should've prefaced with that. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:28, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Please see my latest comments at User talk:WebHamster#break. He doesn't seem to be interested in commenting here at WQA though. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:44, 18 Jan 2008 (UTC)
It was recommended that mediation be tried here rather than coming straight to ANI. Admins are reluctant to block unless it is shown that the user is reticent to change their behavior, and WQA remediation would at least show that other users involved had tried to correct problematic behavior. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

← I understand that, and I don't dispute it. I'm just not sure where to go from here. The user doesn't seem to be willing to change whatsoever. See the latest: [46]. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:24, 18 Jan 2008 (UTC)

What can you realistically expect from an editor who has been forced by a couple of others with an extreme POV into defending, on general grounds, the right to state the opposite extreme POV that he doesn't even support? Denying one's own political convictions for a higher purpose can make one a bit edgy. — WebHamster has stated that you are referring some of his remarks to yourself that were not intended for you, and your latest clash is related to this. When you said "I have no idea what your point is" you referred to WebHamster's reply to you. But this reply started with "(ec)", which I would suggest is an abbreviation for "edit conflict" and means that WebHamster spent a lot of time thinking about this reply to Phoenix-wiki, and so even though it was posted after your reply it does not refer to it. If you reread WebHamster's post with this knowledge I am sure it will make sense to you. Now if we suppose that (at least initially) it never occurred to him that you misunderstood who he was referring to, then your reply must have looked to him like real or pretended stupidity, distracting from an important point. — Such escalations will always happen; we can only try to follow certain rules to make them less likely. If you want WebHamster to learn something from this conflict, as opposed to "winning", I suggest that you stop contacting him directly on his talk page and give Pete's informal mediation attempt a chance to work. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
You make a good point about the edit conflict. I didn't notice that. But still, what we can realistically expect is civility. It's true that some harsh responses can occur initially due to the edginess of the debate, but that has to stop at some point. The incivility has continued long after the fact. This isn't a "clash" between me and this user. WebHamster has acted in bad faith and incivility towards myself and others, and has consistently lashed out at anyone who attempts to discuss his behavior, including an admin. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:52, 18 Jan 2008 (UTC)
I think that's very good advice. Continuing the discussion on WebHamster's talk page is only likely to be inflammatory. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


It's my belief that this WQA is absurd, and further evidence of the precious unworldliness of too many editors who hide behind the banner of WP:CIVIL without understanding what civility either means or entails. Sure, I'd agree that WebHamster's language was at times a little colourful, and perhaps not always as diplomatic as it might have been, but to unilaterally attempt put the blame on him for the – probably avoidable – escalation of the argument is to show a staggering lack of self-perception. I would rather have a hundred WebHamsters, not afraid to call a spade a spade, than one who goes crying to WP:WQA when their thin skin gets a little scratch. Civility does not demand agreement, and it does not preclude robust debate, which is all I think this was. Civility demands respect, but respect can't be demanded, it has to be earned. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to leave most of this alone, but if you check my final comments at User talk:WebHamster, I explain there my motivation for posting this WQA. And, civility to a certain degree is respect, and doesn't need to be earned. That's the policy here. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:59, 18 Jan 2008 (UTC)
I had already seen your final comment on what I hope will be, at least for the time being, your last posting on WebHamster's talk page (see my comment above). It is in fact what drew my attention to this discussion. Suffice it to say that I do not agree with your analysis. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes that seems apparent. I was directing you there only in response to your contention that I've made this WQA posting out of hurt feelings. My intent is explained there. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:25, 18 Jan 2008 (UTC)
I would like to report a very serious breach of etiquette by this user that included a clear example of bully and the use profanity.
The individual flagged a topic within 9 minutes of my creating it. Frankly, it is a highly specialised topic of which I am sure he has no knowledge whatsoever, [47]
I flagged up that I was present and working on the topic, I was involved in its techincalities and linking it to other specialist pages and portals. [48]
Despite this, and whilst communicating with other contributors, WebHamster started to engage in what I can only describe as a thuggish, pedantic and hectoring edit-war [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] against myself and another editor ... whilst I attempted to develop the page.
Additionally, he immediately turned to aggressive profanity in discussion on the matter "starting to piss me off" [54] when finally cautioned by a third party.
The Wikipedia needs to look such behaviour and decide when it considers such behaviour conducive to the development of an educational facility, especially where very specialist topic are involved that were, frankly, well over the heads of aggressors. Especially those aggressors that are allowed or choose to administrative tools.
I think in this case a caution is required. This is not behaviour that would be tolerable in an academic environment. I see he also repeated himself the same day with another deletion case [55]. Thank you. The user name no efforts at courteous communication whatsoever in the first place. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have crossed swords with Webhamster today[56] but I certainly don't interpret his behaviour towards me, or towards anyone else in any of the above links, to be any more than robust argument - certainly nothing to go running off to teacher about. Let's all try not to be so sensitive. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And continues to harass with the same aggressive profanity following the discover of my comments here, [57]. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Fucking hypocrite! --WebHamster 11:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Josepha Marschke

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereSubsequent to referral, the other editor refactored referring editors comments on his talk page, referred to WP:ANI. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This user added information to pages that was unreferenced and in some cases patent nonsense. I reverted their edits, noting in one case that the edit was probably in good faith, but that as their other edits on the same day had all been reverted I was removing the information just in case. I gave them standard warnings regarding their edits on their talk page. Their response was to call me an "uneducated, pretentious jerk"[58]. I am ready to admit an error if they are able to verify a single edit, however would appreciate someone else stepping in to reaffirm my request not to make personal attacks. -- Roleplayer (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Could you provide WP:Diffs of the underlying unreferenced edits? Thanks.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Quite happily.
      • [59] - In this edit (which has not been reverted) a name is given that gets zero ghits associated with the place, and the title of the reference with the author's name also gets zero ghits.
      • [60] - another edit with it's own reference. A search of the New York Times digital archive finds no mention whatsoever of the name given.
      • [61] - a search for the information provided produces a single ghit, of another wiki.
      • [62] - the name provided appears on a single website from a google search, as a client testimonial for a national park.
      • [63] - a google search shows that the person quoted wrote a paper on the Opium Wars for Harvard University in 2004, so to state that they took part is patent nonsense.
      • [64] - the edit that I admitted at the time was probably in good faith, but was reverted based on the user's edit history. In all honesty neither the new nor the old percentage agrees with the 68% quoted on The Lumberjack's Website.
    • That exhausts the entire edit history of this user. -- Roleplayer (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
      • PS note that four of those edits have yet to be reverted. -- Roleplayer (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been away from internet access for a few days. I'll try to read through the diffs shortly, hopefully though someone else will jump in too. Thanks.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, no problem. I have undone the edits in question because other people were starting to edit the articles with the suspicious content still in them: in the edit summaries I quoted this page. I have not contacted the user again, however it is worth noting that they haven't edited Wikipedia again since this whole situation arose. -- Roleplayer (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is likely to get anywhere, the user has substantially refactored your comments and warnings on his talk page. Removing them is acceptable, refactoring your comments to change their meaning is absolutely not, see Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable. I think you need to take this issue to WP:ANI. Sorry.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)